Jose G. Perez wrote:
>This is precisely the difference between "open source" and "free" (as in
>freedom) software. The GNU general public license forces you to license
>as free software anything you distribute that incorporates free
>software: you can't build anything into GNU/Linux and distribute it that
>is not free software. You are forbidden from incorporating free software
>into an app unless that app is also licensed as free software.
>Actually, that's the difference between "copylefted" free software and
other free software, such as software in the public domain. The BSD
licence is a free licence, but "not a very good one" in the eyes of the
Free Software Foundation, because it is not a "copyleft". The term
"copyleft" is literally meant to mean "copyright serving the opposite
purpose of most copyrights." In other words, "the licenses for most
software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it.
By contrast, [copyleft licenses are] intended to guarantee your freedom
to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for
all its users." Copylefts guarantee you freedom, and only take away your
freedom to deny freedom to others. Not all those who support free
software projects are guided by "Free Software Ideology." The BSDs are a
great example of this.
"Open source" software is any in which the source code is "open,"
including but not limited to free software. It includes software that
conflicts with the FSF's Four Freedoms, which I believe I posted
earlier. If I add a requirement to the GPL that you must pay me if you
make money by redistributing copies of my software, it is still "open
source," but not "free."
-Jeffrey Piercy